Arizona usurped Congress’ paramount immigration power by, among other things, criminalizing immigration status under state law. Additionally, the recently amended statute still discriminates against Latinos by sanctioning de facto racial profiling.

Consequently, some people (read “Latinos”) legally in Arizona must produce “papers” on demand. This is hardly a contrived civil rights issue, as some have said. The law also panders to anti-immigrant hysteria and emboldens fringe groups like the Minutemen to increasingly harass and assault Latinos. Such attacks could disenfranchise Hispanic citizens in upcoming elections.

Congress has repeatedly backed away from immigration reform under pressure from the same people now decrying federal inaction. As a result, Arizona’s divisive action only further complicates efforts to enact responsible federal immigration law balancing economic and humanitarian gains against practicalities like national security and crime prevention.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers agrees that Arizona’s law likely will not withstand legal challenges. Instead of rushing to pass similarly impermissible state legislation, Colorado lawmakers should pressure Congress to reform immigration law now.

Damian J. Arguello, Denver

The writer is president of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association.

This letter was published in the May 13 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

With regard to the letter-writer who remembers Jews being rounded up by the Nazis in his native Holland, and his fears that the same will occur in Arizona, does he remember as well that the Jews in his homeland were native citizens?

It is deeply distressing to Holocaust survivors and their families that every time someone wishes to dramatize a situation, they choose comparisons to the Nazis and European Jewry. Please stop these nonsensical comparisons. The Holocaust was a singular horrific historical event, the Jewish people who lived in Europe and were persecuted by the Nazi regime were not there illegally, and the Arizona law is in no way similar to any of this.

Hanna M. Shaner, Englewood

This letter was published in the May 13 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

I am offended that anyone would think, and The Denver Post would print, the concept that illegal immigration enforcement is anything akin to the Nazi activities. Firstly, Jewish is not a race. Mexican is a nationality; it is not a race either. So how is being Mexican, and being here illegally, a race issue? Read our federal law, and the laws for France, England, and Canada regarding illegal entry into the country and you’ll have the correct picture. Asking for identification is every country’s right under their laws. If you don’t belong, then out you go. Arizona is just showing people here illegally the door back home, just as France, England and Canada would do. If these folks end up in jail, it’s because they broke the law.

Tom Gadbois, Centennial

This letter was published in the May 13 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

Re: “Should President Obama move immigration reform to the top of his legislative priorities?” May 4 point-counterpoint columns.

In last Tuesday’s point-counterpoint, John D. Graham’s response completely missed the point. Instead, Graham focused on how focusing on immigration might affect President Obama politically, with his hopes that it would “shore up Obama’s popularity.” That kind of thinking reflects the problem that has become the status quo with all our politicians. We don’t need our representatives making decisions based on what they think is best for their party or the current poll ratings. We sent them there to make decisions that are in the best interest of our country, not to play “party” games.

LaDene Hayes, Westminster

This letter was published in the May 13 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

The talk about racism, profiling and immigration “reform” is meant to distract from the truth about amnesty. Amnesty means rewarding, with citizenship and permanent jobs, people who broke our laws, abused our welfare generosity, and took jobs from the 25 million law-abiding American citizens who are currently unemployed. Amnesty means continued unemployment for those 25 million American citizens. Amnesty means making millions of law-respecting people waiting in their home countries to enter America legally continue to wait so cheaters can go to the front of the line. Amnesty is an immoral act against unemployed American citizens, immigrants who came here legally, and non-citizens who respect our laws by waiting to enter legally.

R. Watkins, Longmont

This letter was published in the May 13 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

This might get interesting, but there appears to be a lot of support for the law. “Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.”And politically even the Democrats are split pretty much 50-50. http://people-press.org/report/613/arizona-immi…

Robtf777

Should Arizona remain passive and inactive when Obama and his Administration have none little beyond doing the SAME THING Bush and his Administration did when it comes to the problem with ILLEGAL aliens ILLEGALLY entering our country, some of whom are ARMED with MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPONS and have recently shot a Farmer and a Deputy??????If Obama and the Feds REFUSE to properly SECURE our Southern Border…..while US troops are out of the country fighting 2 wars in Iraq/Afghan, then it only makes sense for States to pick up the slack and become pro-active.As far as “papers” goes, here's a clue: Guess what “papers” a US Citizen MUST carry own their person to re-enter OUR OWN COUNTRY……to DRIVE a car…..or to show to TSA to board a plane??????I HAVE TO CARRY “PAPERS” in my own country to re-enter my own country, to drive, and to show TSA; . is it really too much of an inconvenience for those from ANOTHER country to LEGALLY enter this country in the first place, to stand in line and fill out forms like I DO, and to produce “papers” when requested by Law Enforcement Officials in the course of either LEGALLY entering this country or DRIVING around?????We are talking about ILLEGALS who ILLEGALLY bypassed the LEGAL entry points, the lines, and the forms….and have SNUCK into this country….sometimes with MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPONS and BALES OF ILLEGAL DRUGS.If Obama and the Feds….DON'T CARE that ranchers and deputies are being SHOT by ARMED ILLEGAL ALIENS….then it is a VERY GOOD THING that Arizona DOES CARE.Either STAND in LINE and LEGALLY ENTER THIS COUNTRY…..or STAY OUT!!!!And keep your illegal miltary assault weapons, your drugs, and your criminal activity OUT as well.

peterpi

1) Arizona passes a law allowing — requiring? — police who reasonably suspect someone is here illeglly to provide proof of legal status, or the police officer will face consequences.2) Arizona recently passed a law that bans ethnic studies programs in school.Tell me again how Arizona isn't racially profiling?I bet no one gets busted for teaching about the origins of St. Patrick's Day. Care to make the same wager about teaching about the origins of Cinco de Mayo?Who is more likely to cause a police officer to develop a reasonable suspicion that he's here illegally, Jose Gutierrez, whose family has resided in what is now Arizona for generations and is driving home because he forgot to bring his wallet? Or Gustav Schmidt, who came here on a tourist visa, decided to stay, and hooked up with a stolen ID?

Claude_Garfield

I can't find it but ABC News reported 58% for the law, 32% against the law and the other 10% – huh? what law?

Claude_Garfield

Gustav Schmidt is in town? That old reprobate.

Anonymous

Him and his brother, John Jacob J. Schmidt.

Guest

Call the police and lock up the women.
And, check their IDs.

theoldgrouch

Which is pretty much the reason we have – or at least used to have – a Constitution, and a Bill of Rights, as the foundation of Law in this Nation. The danger of tyranny of the majority was just one of the reasons our Founding Fathers crafted a Government of Laws, and did not attempt to re-establish a government of men, as was the norm in Europe.We became a great Nation, with a 200+ year history as a fully working Republic, without intrusion of “Imperators”, or other forms of personal dynasty, while adhering to the fundamentals of that Constitution. And the countless numbers of brave souls who gave their blood, and their lives, to protect and support our Constitution are Witness to the strength, power, and beauty of our Nation's principles and the honor in its history.Today, we have come to the point where 52% of these, 60% of those, and X% of the other are to substitute for the fundamentals of Constitutional structure, and Constitutional guarantees. And Laws are to be designed, and crafted, to get the highest percentage of approvals in the public opinion polls, rather than to further strengthen and uphold equal rights and equal standing under Law. And there are those who relish and gleefully hail our descent into this kind of shameful abandonment of our Nation's greatest strength and most honorable traditions.One can only hope that our Courts will act to stem the tide of politics and legislation by public opinion poll, and restore the fundamental principles of that Government of Laws which is founded upon the Constitution that has given us those 200+ years of greatness as a Republic. And that, in so doing, these breaches of Constitutional guarantee and legitimate Legal principles will be, once and for all, thrown on the garbage heap of all the other attempts at supplanting our Government of Laws with a claque of those for whom Government and Legislation are seen to be nothing more than matters of opinion poll popularity.

Kelcy

People seem to miss the point. If you are a born in the US citizen of hispanic heritage what must you carry to prove beyond a doubt to the questioning official that you are in fact a born in the US citizen? If you are a naturalized citizen must you now and forever carry that paperwork with you? That is awfully important paperwork to carry around with you by the way. If I had something like that I would keep it in a safety deposit box or a fire proof safe at home. Must everyone now carry around a certified copy of their birth certificate or in some states their certificate of live birth? Will Birthers in AZ accept a certified copy or will they claim it is bogus? How many born in the US or naturalized citizens will sit in prison for days or worse? Is that what the US stands for?NO ONE has given me an answer to the question of what one must carry no matter what comment board I ask it on. That says a lot in of itself.The only answer spouted off is “the Green Card.” Which you only get when you are a legal immigrant.

thorjohnson

Damian J. Arguello, Denver- the Colorado Hispanic Bar should put pressure on Congress to pass reasonable immigration reform so that AZ won't have to do their work for them.Hanna M. Shaner, Englewood- I've met some Holocaust survivors and you are spot on. There os absolutely no comparison between the Holocaust and the AZ law.Tom Gadbois, Centennial- You nailed it. Well said. LaDene Hayes, Westminster- I agree with you and Grouch, quit making laws by following the polls.R. Watkins, Longmont- Reagan shoudn't have done it and Obama shouldn't do it. No to amnesty. Yes to immigration reform.

wes price

Mr Watkins’ letter is right on. “Amnesty means rewarding, with citizenship and permanent jobs, …”.
Of course, once becoming a citizen, they will then join the ranks of the unemployed created by those who “broke our laws”.

theoldgrouch

That's simply because the proponents of this piece of legislation by way of opinion poll don't want to admit they have stepped way, Way, WAY over the line; and the bill is actually in violation of much of the fundamentals in the Constitution. Just as they don't want to face up to the fact that the bill is, inherently, directed at the inflamation of emotional responses to immigration, including, but not limited to, racism and racial profiling; and does nothing at all to help solve any of the current problems.Just read the responses on previous threads. Every attempt to approach the bill from aLEGAL standpoint is met with reams of garbage about what the writer insists the bill is NOT, rather than a simple response concerning the question of what the bill actually IS.This is an excellent example of what happens when the lowest possible common denominator of “public opinion” is substituted for rational considerations of the effects of a bad law; and a truly bad law becomes the object of necessity for defense of the indefensible.Insofar as anyone at all versed in the comprehension of legalisms, and legislative products, be concerned, the consensus is that, as currently written, this bill does call for Citizens, whether naturally born, or naturalized, to always carry “proof” of their “legal right” to be in Arizona; as anyone can voice “suspicion” of another's status, and such “suspicion” is, by the language of the bill, considered to be “reasonable cause” to have law enforcement demand such “proof”. Which prompted the Governor at the signing session to indicate that there would have to be a set of “regulations and guidelines” constructed for law enforcement personnel; simply BECAUSE the bill itself contained such a provision for harassment of anyone and everyone “suspected” of being “illegally in Arizona”. And, just what such “proof” must needs be is . . . totally unclear, and unspecified, in the bill itself. Thus, all those who are infatuated with the bill can respond with is the “Green Card”; since they are as completely ignorant of the bill's flaws – and the need for clear presentation of essentials – as they are of everything else in the bill.And all the reams of hogslops about how many like the bill, or how Hispanics MIGHT, or might not, enforce it, etc., etc., does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to wish away the Governor's own statements concerning the faults in the bill as it presently stands. That she should have Vetoed it in the first place is, of course, a matter of Arizona politics, and her own approach to them. But, that too does not wish away her comments concerning the simple fact that the bill has MAJOR FAULTS in it.No, Kelcy, the US does NOT “stand for” this kind of thing. And, challenge in the Courts is already in the works. That there is a vocal claque of those for whom legislation by opinion poll seems to be their notion of how our Government works – or “should work” as they imagine it – is, unfortunately, evidence of how altogether too many responding here do fantasize what we “should stand for” in the US. But, that's to be expected, given the EMOTIONAL, rather than rational, nature of the respondents and responses.I wish this were a more definite and specific answer that it is, or can be considering the vagueness of the bill's terms in and of themselves. But, it's the best answer I have. And, I rather think it will be the only one you will get that even attempts to address your actual question.

Claude_Garfield

We know,. We already read the letters.Anything new and “pithy” to say?

goodspkr

I think I know where you are coming from, but the Arizona law simply requires the local police if they apprehend someone who may be illegal to check their status and turn them over to the Feds if they are illegal. It also creates penalties for businesses that hire illegals. So, Grouch where does this violate the Constitution?

goodspkr

Grouch, I'm not sure where you are coming from or going to (not unusual). But since this law simply requires police when they legally stop someone to check their immigration status and if they are illegal to turn them over to the Feds, I don't see a violation of the Constitution. I see more of a violation with sanctuary cities refusing to do this.

Anonymous

I take it then you approve of overturning those parts of the Constitution of the United States dealing with the citizen’s RIGHT to be free from ANY warrantless form of “search and siezure”. And that you are in favor of a hodge-podge of States setting up border check points, etc., to determine the “legal” status of those coming and going; with additional law enforcement allowed to demand “proof” of “legal” status of being in the State itself, even from Citizens and residents, on the basis of “suspicion” of being “illegal” alone. Which violates the principle of the law of being “innocent until proven guilty”, in favor of a “guilty unless you prove yourself innocent” approach.

Which of course is perfectly in line with your being one of the SOLE-ONLY-TRUE-Red-White-And-Blue-Patriot-Americans passing judgment on the citizenship and patriotism of others who don’t happen to agree with YOU.

goodspkr

Pi, are their St.Patrick Day studies programs in any state? Teaching about the origins of Cinco de Mayo is something we should be teaching in history classes. It is actually associated with US history so it would be very legitimate in any case. From your examples it sounds like you would simply declare ignore anyone who enters or stays illegally in the country because it's too hard to check???

goodspkr

Kelcy, I think I did answer. A driver's licence should suffice.

goodspkr

Nonsense, Grouch.

goodspkr

We should obey the immigration laws of the USA or change them. Right now, Arizona is simply obeying US law. All the people who are against it need to marshall their resources and get the federal law changed. Short of that, you should quit complaining about Arizona upholding current law. Pithy enough for you?

bellle

I don't agree with Grouch's viewpoint.

goodspkr

I believe there are a number of polls out there. Most of them show people support the Arizona law about 2 to 1.

Guest

I look for this in a the few polls that I have looked at.
Do “they” support the Arizona law or do they support immigration reform – or is there any way to tell?

Anonymous

Exactly! Everyone, regardless of race or politics, agree we have an “illegal immigration problem.” The argument is how to resolve it. The Arizona law is not the answer. And for those touting the polls, that doesn’t matter either. Becuase as Claude is pointing out people want a solution, sometimes regardless of or ignorant of the consequences. But it’s not a “majority” issue. It’s a constitutional issue, and this law will be judged in the courts as to it’s constitutionality – just like Colorado’s “hate law” back in the ’90s when they passed an amendment to deny gays certain rights. The state supreme court overturned that one.

Claude_Garfield

Cinco de Mayo is an Aemrican thing.Although the Battle of Puebla took place in Mexico – few Mexicans give it more than a passing nod.

Claude_Garfield

When have I ever complained about the Arizona law?

irisman

We have lots of commentators who fancy that they're experts on constitutional law, and I'm not trying to criticize Goodspkr. The fact that a law is popular doesn't mean it's good. Jim Crow was popular. Lawsuits regarding the Arizona law should be heard by the federal courts as soon as possible. When the constitutionality of the law is decided one way or the other, the Congress will be in a better position to deal with immigration reform.

goodspkr

No, but the USA was busy with the Civil War so the Monroe Doctrine didn't have any teeth. I guess the French decided to not let a crisis go to waste. I believe it was Jean-Jacques Emanuel who talked Maximilian into going there.

goodspkr

You haven't. You just asked for something pithy.

Claude_Garfield

then why post “Right now, Arizona is simply obeying US law. All the people who are against it need to marshall their resources and get the federal law changed. Short of that, you should quit complaining about Arizona upholding current law.

goodspkr

I'm not an expert on Constitutional Law. But having read the law, it didn't seem to have anything that would violate the Constitution. No race is singled out. No extraordinary actions are called for. In fact, it just says all law enforcement in Arizona when legally stopping someone will determine their status and if they are illegal, they will turn them over to the Fed. What grounds would you see for calling it unconstitutional.

goodspkr

I see why you asked that. The you in the last sentence was a generic you, not CG personally.

At the risk of sending this stream off into the weeds, what do you think of Laura Bush's annoucement that she supports same-sex marriage and is opposed to reversing Roe vs Wade?

commonsense guy

They can teach Cinco de Mayo, They mearly can not have a required class about 1 ethinic teaching, it must be a rounded class with mulitable,

goodspkr

If you want to vote on what to do about the Arizona Law I have put a poll on my blog. You can vote and get the conservative perspective on issues.http://1202013.blogspot.com/

commonsense guy

According to the law, you need to have paper work – what is acceptable, is a state issued id – drivers lisence, green card, visa, ect that you need to have on you if you are legal anyway. I have also heard that you can give your ssn number to an officer who can look it up on their in car system and that will get them info about you – they will ask you things like your adress that are in the system to see if it lines up. if not then you have some explaining to do. Just like if your lisence matches the registration on the car when your pulled over if it does your fine, if it doesn't the cop asks you more questions to make sure its not stolen

goodspkr

It was a good read. Nice link, CG.

commonsense guy

The bill was recently admended to fix your (well maybe not your's but many in the state of AZ) concerns about “reasonable cause” and now outlines steps that must be taken – like a lawful stop by a police officer first. As for what works as for paper work- see above, it has been outlined in the bill and in the leglstator. As for what the US stands for, I guess you can say that the US doesn't stand for Obamacare as well sense that is being challanged in the courts then correct?

Anonymous

In the sense that there is a Constitutional challenge to the health-care reform bill, that doesn’t necessarily indicate what the “US does, or doesn’t stand for” as Kelcey was asking. Her reference was to the area of the Arizona bill that calls for CITIZENS to show “proof” of their “legally” being in Arizona, which has been the issue all along.For the past 200+ years the US has been firm on the subject of the Constitutional right of the individual to be free of ANY unwarranted search and seizure; which means exactly that, FREE of such. And, that also means that NO State CAN ACT, on its own, to establish a status of “illegal/illegally” being in that State, since all States are subject to the provisions of the Constitution itself in making their Statutes.Now, you say the bill has been reworked, or rewritten, to provide for this Constitutional right. BUT! The whole crux of previous – and present – argument is, simply, the faults in the bill AS IT WAS PASSED AND SIGNED; where “proof” of “legal/legally” being in Arizona became necessary; with nothing more than “suspicion” of “illegal” status serving as “reasonable cause” to stop and demand that “proof”, even of CITIZENS. And that is a whole hell of a lot more than the US has ever stood for!The health-care reform bill is open to challenge on a couple of areas; most particularly the one requiring purchase of insurance. But, that is a challenge directed against the Federal Government; not a challenge of the actions of a State to, in and of itself, establish a “criminal” status, that of being “illegally in Arizona”, which “criminal status” is one where one has to “prove oneself innocent”, rather than coming under the fundamental legal premise of “innocent until proven guilty by due legal process.”Specific parts of legislation may always be open to challenge. But, in general, as Kelcy was pointing out – and as many others were also – challenge to parts of legislation is, itself, a Constitutional process. The Arizona law, if allowed to stand, would, effectively, have abolished a major part of the Constitution itself, in favor of a piece of State legislation; which again is way more than the US has ever stood still for.

goodspkr

Here's another interesting aspect to this and the legal challenge. As the solicitor general, Elana Kagan has been asked to submit the Administration views on Arizona's law. >>She could urge the justices to overturn the Arizona law on the grounds that it conflicts with federal responsibility over immigration, and thereby provoke the wrath of conservatives across the nation. Or, she could say the Arizona measure does not interfere with federal immigration law — a stand that would provoke outrage among Latinos, civil libertarians and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sponsored the appeal to the high court.<<She appears to be in a Zugzwang moment.

goodspkr

Well, I'm not voting for her for first lady anymore.

Claude_Garfield

I think the guy stays with discussion of the constitutional aspects of the AZ law, with only a couple of minor detours.

peterpi

Wow! Amaziung what happens when she feels free to speak. I wonder how many of W's fundamentalist preacher pals are reminding himn of what St. Paul allegedly had to say about women speaking up, and reminding him who has absolute total authority over the household?Claude, I'm glad to hear it. You have any web cites/sites?

Her real response should be, “I can't comment on that as it may appear before the court.”

Anonymous

Perhaps then, YOU can give us the benefit of YOUR expertise, and answer “commonsenseguy” with YOUR superior knowledge of what the Constitution has to say. I am sure everyone will prefer to hear from our resident Super Patriot, who will clear up the “nonsense”.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...